]> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:41:16 -0600 Matt Gushee <mgushee@havenrock.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 12:29:56PM -0700, Seth Kurtzberg wrote: > > > > I've done some work in this direction, although with an object-relational database, not an OODB. I'm convinced that the OODB concept is fatally flawed. > > I've heard this statement before, but most of the explanations I've heard amount to "been there, done that, didn't work." What is wrong with OODBs, in your opinion? They don't deliver what they promise. The basic idea is to make programming with persistent objects similar to programming with ordinary objects. But the complexities involved with implementing OODBs requires you to code in sub-optimal ways. To abandon a well established technology such as RDB, you need a reason why the newer method is better, so you need to justify the use of the OODB paradigm in some rational terms: productivity, reliability, ease of maintenance, etc. The OODB products I've used simply don't deliver this. The object/relational hybrid is a much better option as it leverages 25 years of R&D in the database community. > > -- > Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way, > Englewood, Colorado, USA Horses bear manure through > mgushee@havenrock.com its fields; > http://www.havenrock.com/ When a nation ignores the Way, > Horses bear soldiers through > its streets. > > --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.) > > ------------------- > To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > -- Seth Kurtzberg MIS Corp 480-661-1849 seth@cql.com ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners